Back
Panchayat Patriot Prevails: Shields Gram Rojgar Sevak Role from Disqualification Axe
In a significant ruling for rural governance, the
has quashed the disqualification of Santosh Galbe, an elected member of Devegaon Village Panchayat in Parbhani district. Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar held that serving as a
Gram Rojgar Sevak
—a helper role under rural employment schemes—does not amount to holding a
"
"
under
Sections 14(1)(f) and (g)
of the
(MVPA). This decision, cited as
, restores Galbe's position and clarifies boundaries for local leaders juggling community service roles.
From Village Helper to Disqualification Target
The saga began when rival Krushna Kamble lodged a complaint with Parbhani District Collector, alleging Galbe's Gram Rojgar Sevak duties created a conflict of interest. Galbe, aged 40 and also a Gram Rojgar Sevak under a 2011 Government Resolution, was accused of profiting from panchayat-related work. The Collector agreed on , disqualifying him under MVPA provisions barring members from salaried posts or interests in panchayat contracts. An appeal to the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, failed on . Galbe then approached the High Court via Writ Petition No. 6776 of 2024, amid fears of electoral fallout.
At stake: Does the Gram Rojgar Sevak post—tied to the , and —trigger automatic disqualification for panchayat members?
Petitioner's Plea: 'Outsourced Ally, Not Panchayat Payroll'
Galbe's counsel, , dissected the 2011 GR: The role is part-time, outsourced, and appointed by the —not the panchayat . Remuneration is an honorarium from 6% administrative funds under MGNREGA, not panchayat coffers. No salaried status, no direct profit from panchayat works. Kale cited precedents like Rukminibai Badrinath Shedage v. State of Maharashtra (2020, )—where family benefits didn't taint eligibility—and Supreme Court cases: Divya Prakash v. Kultar Chand Rana (1974), Shivamurthy Swami Inamdar v. Chanbasangouda (1970), and Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay (2001), emphasizing service conditions over mere payment.
Rival's Retort: 'Profit in Any Form Counts'
Respondent Kamble's advocate, , defended the authorities' view: Admitted Sevak duties mean profit, salaried or not. The Collector and Commissioner had rightly seen a "place of profit," tying it to panchayat implementation under MGNREGA.
Decoding ' ': GR Clauses Under the Lens
Justice Kadethankar meticulously parsed the 2011 GR's Marathi clauses (translated in judgment). Key distinctions emerged:
- Appointment : decides, not panchayat (Clause 2).
- Nature : Part-time, contractual, outsourced; not state/ZP/panchayat employee (Clause 1).
- Pay : Work-proportional honorarium from scheme's 6% admin pool, disbursed via Block Development Officer (Clause 7).
The court rooted analysis in constitutional soil— —where " " guards against executive sway over legislators. Local acts mirror this. Factors like appointing authority, duties, and pay source ruled out MVPA disqualification.
No "salaried office" exists; it's occasional aid for record-keeping and MGNREGA execution. Precedents reinforced: Profit tests substance, not labels ( Shivamurthy Swami , Divya Prakash ).
Court's Razor-Sharp Quotes That Seal the Deal
"The post of Gram Rojgar Sevak created under the Act of 1977 and regulated by the Government Resolution datedthus does not fall within the purview of Section 14(1)(f) of the Act of 1958 disqualifying an elected candidate on account of holding a salaried office or."
"Gram Rojgar Sevak is appointed by, not by Village Panchayat... The services are contractual, occasional in nature and that too, on outsourced basis."
"The remuneration/honorarium earned by a Village Panchayat Member as Gram Rojgar Sevak cannot be said to have any share or interest in any work done by the order of Panchayat... within the meaning of Section 14(1)(g) of the Act."
"An elected member of a Village Panchayat who works as Gram Rojgar Sevak while on post, cannot be disqualified u/s 14(1)(f) or (g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act 1958."
Victory Restored: A Green Light for Dual Roles?
The writ petition succeeded on . Both impugned orders were quashed; Galbe's membership reinstated (if term persists). This precedent safeguards panchayat members in similar MGNREGA support roles, easing rural talent retention. Authorities must now recalibrate: Disqualifications demand GR scrutiny, not assumptions. For villages, it means more hands-on leaders without fear of ouster—bolstering schemes like MGNREGA amid implementation challenges.
